It is an axiom of contemporary
scholarship that gender is a social construct (Brod, Kramer; Lorber; Ortner).
Ancient Greece (Cantarella, Dubish), Palestine (Satlow) and Rome (Gleason; Kueffler;
Hadley) all articulated what it means to be male or female in relationship to
their values and institutions. This study focuses on the figure of the male
Jesus in Matthew from the perspective of the common gender stereotype in the
Hellenistic world at that time. We argue that the ancient world shared a common
gender stereotype, that is, a descriptive and often a proscriptive sketch of
gender-specific roles, tasks, tools and places. There are three major sources
of information for this stereotype. We find it in its full form in authors such
as Xenophon, Aristotle, and Philo. Second, it is also accessible in epideictic
rhetoric, which articulates the criterion for the honor and praise of males
(Neyrey 1998:70-162), and in other places, such as physiognomics (Malina and
Neyrey 1996:104-6, 111-13, 146-48, 179-81). Third, a large body of data on "public/private"
from many ancient documents provides yet one more important source of information
on the gender stereotype.

This study has two parts,
data and interpretation. First we will rehearse the ancient data for the gender
stereotype. The thrust of this part of the study points toward males as "outdoors"
and as "public" figures, as well as the roles, tasks, and behaviors expected
of such males. Second, with this data we will then interpret the figure of the
male Jesus in Matthew. We wish to see how much of this stereotype Matthew knows,
how he presents Jesus as an ideal male, and what this means for the interpretation
of his gospel.

2.0 The Gender-Divided
World of Antiquity

2.1 Ancient Informants
On Gender Stereotypes. The ancients perceived the cosmos as totally gender
divided, and so they describe parallel male and female worlds, in which certain
places, roles, tasks and objects are deemed appropriate to each gender. Their
descriptions, of course, are cultural constructions of social reality, that
is, integral to their attempts to organize and interpret their worlds. The topos
on "house" and "household" that was popular both in classical Greece and especially
Rome (Pomeroy 69-73) constitutes our first source of information of the ancient
gender stereotype.

In figure one below, we
have in parallel columns four articulations of the topos on "house" and "household."
While there are many examples of this topos, we may only examine these four
in the framework of this article. What do these texts tell us? 1. They span
over five centuries (Xenophon 428-354 BCE; Aristotle 384-322 BCE; Philo 15-50
CE; and Hierocles 117-138 CE); and because of their striking similarities, they
witness to a common and persistent gender stereotype in antiquity. 2. All consider
gender-divided space an important element, whether that is open/covered or outside/inside.
While Hierocles does not use the terminology of binary opposite spaces, his
tasks position males and females in different places. 3. Corresponding to gender-specific
space are gender-specific tasks and roles. Male are either engaged in agriculture
or civic affairs (= "outdoors" or "public"); thus they are farmers, herders,
traders or civic leaders. Females, on the other hand, have three tasks associated
with the "indoors" or "private" world: child rearing, food preparation and clothing
production. 4. It follows that objects and tools are likewise gender-specific.
Plows and draft animals, sheep, weapons and harvesting tools belong to the male
world; looms, pots and pans and food-preparation instruments belong to the female.
5. Xenophon and Aristotle continue the stereotype by contrasting body types:
male bodies are suited to hardship, labor and strength, whereas female bodies
are weaker (Kuefler (2001:21); if males display courage, females are timid.
It is worth noting that both rural and urban locations are in view.

2.2 "Public" and "Private"
Labels for Male Spaces. My research identifies many linguistic expressions
for "public/private." The raw data are extensive in regard to the terms used
and the periods of history in which the examples are found.

Figure Two:
Different Expressions of "Public" & "Private"

1. / : "The
deliberative kind is either hortatory or dissuasive; for both those who
give advice in private () and those who speak in the assembly () invariably
either exhort or dissuade" Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.3.3 1358b

7. / :
"And you will find united in the same persons an interest at once in private
() and in public () affairs" (Thucydides, II.40.2)

2. µ / : "What
a widespread corruption of the young in private families (i ) as well as
publicly in the State (µ)" Plato, Laws 10 890B

8. /: "Two speeches
have been devised that relate to burial. One is common ( ) to the whole
city and is spoken over the war-dead. The other is private and individual(
') , relating to events that frequently happen in peace, when people die
at various ages (Pseudo-Dionysius, Procedure for Funeral Speeches,
(Russell and Wilson p.. . .)

3. / : "Now
he who said, 'The man who would be tranquil in his mind must not engage
in many affairs, either private () or public (),' first of all makes our
tranquillity very expensive if it is bought at the price of inactivity.
. ." Plutarch, Tranquillity 465C

9. publice
/ privatim: "We shall do well to heed that sound doctrine of democritus
in which he shows that tranquillity is possible only if we avoid most of
the activities of both private (privatim) and public (publice)
life, or at least those that are too great for our strength" Seneca,
On Anger 3.6.3

4. /: "First,
they laid down laws to protect the morals of our children. . .then they
legislated for the other age-groups in succession, including in their provision,
not only private citizens ( ), but also the public men ( )" Aeschines, Against
Timarchus 7

10. privatus:
"Under fortune one inquires whether the person is a slave or free, rich
or poor, a private citizen (privatus) or an official with authority
(cum postestate). . .(Cicero, De Inv.1.25-35).

5. /: "When
any Athenians come to him [Hyrcanus] either on an embassy or on a private
matter ( ' ' ). . ." Josephus, Ant. 14.151

11. publicus
/ privatus: ". . .tranquillity is possible only if we avoid most
of the activities of both private (privatim) and public (publice)
life, or at least those that are too great for our strength" Seneca,
On Anger 3.6.3

These data indicate that
males may be located in three places: "public" (politics), "private"
(non-kinship associations), and "private" (household).

1. Greeks and Romans distinguished
between "public" and "private" in terms of male participation in the "public"
or political life of the city and the "private" social relations
of an ordinary citizen (see also Hyperides 4.9; Xenophon, Agesilaus 11.5-6;
Demosthenes, Trierarchic Crown 15-16; Lysias, Defense of Mantitheus
9-13). Demosthenes makes this distinction in one of his speeches:

There are two sorts of
problems with which the laws of all nations are concerned. First, what are the
principles under which we associate with one another, have dealings with one
another, define the obligations of private life ( ), and, in general
order our social relations? Secondly, what are the duties that every man among
us owes to the commonwealth, if he chooses to take part in public life
( ) and professes any concern for the State? Now it is to the advantage of the
common people that laws of the former category, laws of private intercourse
( ), shall be distinguished by clemency and humanity. On the other hand it is
to your common advantage that laws of the second class, the laws that govern
our relations to the State ( µ), shall be trenchant and peremptory, because,
if they are so, politicians will not do so much harm to the commonalty (Against
Timocrates 192-93).

Elite males, then, may participate in public life ( µ)
or restrict themselves to ordinary private life ( ). Thus, male association
with other males occurs in both "public" and"private." Different behavioral
expectations characterize male/public and male/private behavior: laws that govern
public activity should be "trenchant and peremptory" vs "clement and humane"
in private intercourse.

2. Male public figures still had private household
concerns. For example, criteria for bishops and deacons in 1 Tim 3:4-5, 12 indicate
that a male can provide appropriate leadership for the church only if he manages
his household well. Thus males, who "naturally" belong in the public world with
other males, also have roles and duties in the private world of the household
. The duties of a male in the private world of the household include: 1. control
of his children, 2. procurement of dowries for daughters and wise marriages
for them (Isaeus, On the Estate of Cleonymus 39-40), 3. proper use of
patrimony (Aeschines, Against Timarchus 154), 4. funeral rites for parents
(Isaeus, On the Estate of Menecles 36-37; see Matt 8:21-22), 5. concern
for the virtue and reputation of wives and other females in the household (see
Lysias, On the Murder of Eratosthenes 15-26), and 6. ruling over slaves
and servants (Balch 1981:21-80). This distinction confirms what anthropologists
of the classical world regularly argue, namely, that the ancients had only two
institutions, politics (= "public") and kinship (= "private").

3. Occasionally we read of males with decidedly public roles
but who rarely appear in public. Plato described some rulers remaining
in their fortresses and rarely appearing in public:

And is not that the sort of prison house in which the tyrant
is pent? He only of the citizens may not travel abroad or view any of the sacred
festivals that other free men yearn to see, but he must live for the most part
cowering in the recesses of his house like a woman, envying among the other
citizens anyone who goes abroad and sees any good thing (Plato, Rep. 9.579b-c).

While Plato's tyrant keeps to the "indoor" world to escape violence, we read
of other monarchs who lived in splendid isolation within their imperial residences
and were elaborately insulated from the common world (see 1 Tim 6:16). Therefore,
a few elite males remained "indoors,' but within the public world of the institution
of politics. But males who otherwise remain "indoors" are considered shameful,
because their place is in "public" (Pomeroy 276).

4. Finally we consider an example of this stereotype of male public and private
space which clearly articulates the three social venues to which the
ancients thought males belonged. Lysias argues for the honorable character of
the accused by calling attention before his male peers how the defendant fulfilled
the expected code of proper male behavior in each of the three spheres where
males function (In Defense of Mantitheus 16.9-12). First he recounts
the honorable behavior in regard to the "private" world of the household:

Although little property had been bequeathed to me, I bestowed two sisters
in marriage, with a dowry of thirty minae apiece; to my brother I allowed such
a portion as made him acknowledge that the had got a larger share of patrimony
than I had; and towards all else my behaviour has been such that never to this
day has a single person shown any grievance against me. So much for the tenor
of my private life ( ) (10-11).

As the eldest male in his family, he assumed responsibility for the honorable
marriage of the family's daughters; he acted as patron within the family by
distribution of the father' s patrimony to his male siblings and to the family'
s clients.

The speaker turns to the world outside of the household, which, by contrast
with the "private" or household world, he labels the "public" world:

. . .with regard to public matters ( ), I hold that the strongest proof I
can give of my decorous conduct is the fact that all the younger set who are
found to take their diversion in dice or drink or the like dissipations are,
as you will observe, at feud with me, and are most prolific in lying tales about
me. It is obvious, surely, that if we were at one in our desires they would
not regard me with such feelings (11).

This is not the "public"-political world of the Assembly nor the "private"
household world just seen. Rather, we view the non-household world where males
entertain themselves in the company of other males with symposia, games, gambling
and the like.

Finally, he turns to the public-political world where the affairs of the city
are in view, in this case, the city's army and its defense of its allies:

As regards campaigns in face of the enemy, observe how I discharged my duty
to the State. First, when you made your alliance with the Boeotians, and we
had to go to the relief of Hilartus, I had been enrolled by Orthobulus for service
in the cavalry (12-13).

Mantitheus goes on to say how he volunteered for the more difficult military
task of an infantryman, attesting to his courage and solidarity with that part
of the army. And he claims that he has been a model "public," i.e., political,
person who has "discharged his duty to the State." By recounting his military
exploits, he declares that he acted as an honorable male who has a visible public
role in the affairs of the city. Thus, Mantitheus serves as an excellent emic
informer on the triple spheres, spaces and roles which make up the male world
which was both "public" and "private."

2.3 Males and Females vis-a-vis Gender-Divided Space. While "public"
vs "private" were used by the ancients primarily in regard to males, our investigation
of the ancient gender stereotype surfaced many examples the way male and females
are gender divided in regard to space.

1. / : "It saw
how unlike the bodily shapes of man and woman are, and that each of the
two has a different life assigned to it, to the one the domestic () life,
to the other a civic life (), it judged it well to prescribe rules all of
which though not directly made by nature were the outcome of wise reflection
and in accordance with nature" Philo, Virt 19

4. / : "And
of the many forms of baseness none disgraces an aged man more than idleness,
cowardice, and slackness, when he retires from public offices ( ) to the
domesticity ( ) befitting women." Plutarch, Old Men in Public Affairs
784A

2. / : "And
since both the indoor ( ) and the outdoor ( ) tasks demand labor and attention,
God from the first adapted the woman's nature, I think, to the indoor (
) and the man's to the outdoor ( ) tasks and cares" Xenophon, Oeconomicus
7.19-22

5. / µ: "Organized
communities are of two sorts, the greater which we call cities () and the
smaller which we call households (µ). Both of these have their governors;
the government of the greater is assigned to men, under the name of statesmanship
(), that of the lesser, known as household management (µ), to women." Philo,
Special Laws 3.171

3. / : "Human
beings live not in the open air ( ), like beasts, but obviously need shelter
( ). Those who mean to win store to fill the covered space, have need of
someone to work at the open-air ( ) occupations; since ploughing, sowing,
planting and grazing are all such open-air () employments. . . again, as
soon as this is stored in the covered place ( ) , there is need of someone
to keep it and to work at the things that must be done under cove ( ). Cover
() is needed for the nursing of the infants; cover () is needed for the
making of the corn into bread, and likewise for the manufacture of clothes
from the wool." Xenophon, Oeconomicus 7:20-21

6. µ / : "Theano
her exposed her arm. Somebody exclaimed, 'A lovely arm.' 'But not for the
public (µ),' said she. Not only the arm of the virtuous woman, but her speeches
well, ought to be not for the public (µ), and she ought to be modest and
guarded about saying anything in the hearing of outsiders ( ), since it
is an exposure of herself; for in her talk can be seen her feelings, character,
and disposition. Pheidias made the Aphrodite of the Eleans with one foot
on a tortoise, to typify for womankind keeping at home () and keeping silence."
Plutarch, Advice to Bride and Groom 142C-D

We saw that while males
enjoy exclusively male public and private worlds, they belong also in a second
"private" world, the household. And a code of duties accompanies male participation
in each three realms. Females, however, do not have formal public space vis-a-vis
the polis; and while the stereotype indicates that they belong to the "indoor"
world, that is not to say that they always remain in their houses. What household
does not need to import water and fuel, fulfilment of which tasks must take
females "outside" of the house. But females enjoy neither a civic role and so
have no public space. The data about females at meals outside their houses in
general indicate their absence (MacMullen); as Ps-Demosthenes implies, such
females are likely slaves or hetairai (59.122). About such females the law was
not interested (Fantham 380). In summary, when concepts like gender-divided
space occur, they invariably indicate redundant sets of gender-specific places,
roles, tools, and even virtues.

Matthew, we argue, knows
this gender stereotype, as is indicated in the following. For example, in Jesus'
final discourse he warns all to watch. Illustrative of the gender stereotype
is his reference to "males laboring in the fields," which is juxtaposed to "women
grinding corn" (21:25-26). Similar to this is the exhortation to "behold the
birds of the sky who do not sow nor reap nor gather into barns," which is balanced
by "behold the lilies of the fields. . .who neither toil nor spin" (6:26-28).
Males, who labor in the fields, perform males tasks related to farming. Females,
who labor in the household, do female tasks related to food preparation and
clothing production. Evidently, the tools of each are gender specific. To this
we might add the woman with yeast (13:33) who is juxtaposed to farmers (13:24)
and merchants (13:45-46).

2.4 "Public" vs "Private"
and Human Sexual Organs. The ancient medical writers Herophilus and Galen
testify to the ancient belief that male and female genitals were classified
as "public" and "private." Although it was argued that male and female sexual
organs are similar, the difference was significance: male genitals are outside
the body, whereas female genitals are within the body. Thus Galen writes: "All
the parts, then, that men have, women have too, the difference between them
lying in only one thing. . .namely, that in women the parts are within the body,
whereas in men they are outside, in the region called the perineum" (Usefulness
of the Parts of the Body 14.6). External vs internal classification of the
genitals, then, replicates the larger stereotype of a gender-divided world.

One important conclusion
to draw from this study of a gender-divided stereotype is that,, while we have
focused on space, the stereotype is replicated in matters of social roles, tasks
and tools, behavior and even biology. It permeates and structures the entire
social lives of males and females. 1. It describes the roles ascribed
to males as husbands and fathers in the "codes of household duties": they were
expected to lead and command, whereas their wives should follow and obey. 2.
As regards tasks, males acquired the art of farming and herding, including
the tools for this, such as mastering animals, carpentry and tool-making
required for this; females became adept at food preparation and clothing production.
While both males and females touched corn and sheep, males produced the corn
and sheared the sheep, whereas females processed the corn and the sheep's wool
- different tasks. 3. Finally, males in public were expected to behave
in masculine ways: with boldness, aggressiveness, eager to defend and advance
their families' interests. Females, on the other hand, were respected when they
were patient, subservient, restrained, passive and defensive of their virtue
(Malina 2001:48-50).

2.5 Nuancing the Stereotype:
Social Location. Does the same set of gender expectations apply equally
to elite and non-elite males and females? Needed here is some model of social
stratification suitable to the ancient world which can distinguish for us the
various classification of persons in the ancient world. Gerhard Lenski, in his
survey of advanced agrarian, pre-industrial societies, provides just such a
classificatory tool (1966). Lenski describes a hierarchical ranking of persons
which seems to fit quite well the ancient world, which model has been profitably
used by various New Testament scholars which considerable success (Saldarini
1988:35-49; Fiensy 1991:155-76; Duling 1992:99-116; Rohrbaugh 1993:114-27; Neyrey
1996:255-67). Atop the social pyramid sit the true elite of ancient society,
namely rulers and/or aristocratic families, who are served by a series of retainers
such as soldiers, priests, scribes, slaves, etc. Dropping off precipitously
in terms of social status, the hierarchical pyramid then consists of merchants,
only a few of whom cater to elite tastes and needs, while the rest belong to
the non-elite masses. Peasants, who constituted the vast majority of the ancient
population (80%), tilled the land, labored in small villages, fished. and served
as day laborers. Landless peasants in search of labor made up the bulk of the
artisan group, which sought its fortunes in cities. Below them are the unclean,
degraded and expendibles, such as beggars, thieves, prostitutes and the like.
The ancients themselves expressed the radical difference between elites and
non-elites as one between "the best" ( ) and "the rest" ( ) or between the "more
reputable" (honestiores) and the "more lowly" (humiliores) (Garnsey
1970:221-76).

Accordingly, all males
did not enjoy the same social location and role, and hence "honor."Some were
free and others, slaves; a few were elites and the rest non elites. In a hierarchical
world where every person was vertically classified according to conventional
notions of wealth, power and status, kings rank above peasants who rank above
slaves, who in turn are above the untouchables. Few males, then, had the opportunity
to fulfil the ideal stereotype of masculinity. Peasant males simply had no "public"-political
world; leadership roles so characteristic of male elite are not available to
them, nor do they have voice to speak with boldness in public.

More to our purposes,
the ancients themselves inform public speakers to make similar distinctions
in regard to the social positions of the persons to be described in speeches
or called as witnesses. In regard to how a person may be presented to a court,
Cicero instructs the orator to select one of the following social locations:
"Under fortune one inquires whether the person is a slave or free, rich or poor,
a private citizen (privatus) or an official with authority" (Inv.
1.25.35). Quintilian's version brings out more of the elite/non-elite: "It makes
a great difference whether a man be famous or obscure, a magistrate or a private
citizen (privatus), a father or a son, a citizen or a foreigner, a free
man or a slave" (Inst. Orat. 5.10.26). All such witnesses, of course,
were males, as males alone had public voice. This material will be of considerable
importance when we examine Jesus, the peasant from Nazareth, who nevertheless
enjoys public voice.

What do we know if we
know this? We have in view an stereotype about human gender which is both ancient
and enduring. We may rightly call it a "commonplace" and expect that it both
describes ancient social life and prescribes it. It constitutes a code into
which all were socialized and according to which praise or blame was awarded.
Although we have tended to view the gender stereotype in terms of space and
location, the data indicate how it was replicated throughout the various aspects
of life in antiquity: space, roles, tasks, tools, biology and behavior. It was,
then, a formidable construct. The ancients, then, had clear and firm notions
of what it meant to be male and female.

3.0 Jesus, the Male
Stereotype and the Code of Honor.

With this stereotype of
male gender in view, we turn to Matthew's Jesus. We claim that Matthew describes
Jesus in terms of the cultural expectations about males just examined. And to
argue this, we will track various representative elements of the stereotype:
(1) space, (2) role and status, (3) tasks and behavior, (4) public speech, (5)
objects, and (6) reputation.

3.1 Jesus, Private and
Public. Where does Matthew locate Jesus? What does this communicate? Recall
that the spatial options for males are "public" (civic space), "private" (with
associates) and "private" (household).

3.1.1 Jesus in "Public"-Political
Space. With Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem and its Temple (Matt 21-22),
he enters into "public"-political space and behaves like a male with elite standing.
He will, moreover, stand face-to-face with Israelite and Roman authorities:
males in male civic space, i.e., courtrooms. Thus Jesus acts as a "public" male
in public-political roles.

3.1.2 Jesus in "Private"
(Non-Kinship) Space). Matthew often portrays him "outside," as the stereotype
on gender-divided space indicated: on a river bank with other males (3: 13 -
17), on the shore of the Lake of Galilee (4:18; 13:1; 15:29) or crossing it
(8:18 and 9:1; 14:13, 22-33), in fields (12:1), in "lonely places" (4:1; 14:13)
and atop mountains (4:8; 5:1-7:29; 14:23; 15:29; 17:1; 24:3-25:56; 28:16). Jesus,
moreover, readily frequents public spaces in villages and towns: synagogues
(4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54), and open areas, such as marketplaces and village
gates (8:5; 9:9, 27; 11:1; 15:1 ). Jesus traveled extensively, speaking and
healing through "all Galilee" (4:23), the surrounds of Gadara (8:28), the villages
around Tyre and Sidon ( 15:21 ) and Caesarea Philippi ( 16:13 ). Thus as far
as Matthew narrates, Jesus lived his life outdoors in the male "private" world
outside his own home, as one would expect.

Matthew, moreover, presents
Jesus "indoors," i.e., in "private" space in the company of disciples and non-kinship
related males. For example, Jesus eats at the home of Levi, where "many tax
collectors and sinners" -- presumably all males - likewise dined (9:10). Although
"indoors," this not "private" in the sense of household, but "private" space
where non-related males gathered; the same holds true for other meals served
Jesus (8:14-15; 10:10; 14:13-21; 15:33-39; 22:2-3).

3.1.3 Jesus in the Private
Household Space. Matthew narrates in 12:46 that Jesus' mother and brothers
"stood outside" and demanded Jesus come to them, while Jesus spoke to his circle
"inside." The story contrasts 1. twosocial groups, the blood
relatives of Jesus ("mother and brothers") and the fictive kin of Jesus ("Here
are my mother and my brothers," 12:49) and 2. twosocial spaces
("outside" and "inside"). Ideally, his family should be "inside" with him and
non-kin "outside." But the kinship relationship and the corresponding space
are spatially topsy-turvy. When Jesus calls the group "inside" his "mother and
brothers," he labels them his kin, albeit fictive kin. His blood relatives,
however, are "outside"; Jesus does not obey their request nor does he imply
that he has any obligation toward them. Matthew, moreover, never describes Jesus
in the "private" world of kin and household. He is not found there; he rejects
the duties expected of him in regard to it; and he speaks against it. The "private"
world of the household, then, is the one space that the male Jesus resists and
avoids.

3.1.4 Mobility and Male
Behavior. While males are expected to be "outdoors," this means the "open
air" male-specific places of cities and villages. How, then, assess Jesus' constant
mobility and so his absence from home and household duties? It belonged to males
to protect and supervise the females under their custody; but if absent for
long, they risked being thought cavalier about the reputation of those females
(Malina 2001:140-42). Matthew says that Jesus' mother is still living, although
she is not cared for by Jesus, despite the fact that he is her eldest (or only)
son (13:55-56). Jesus' absence from the family home and his lack of care for
his mother make him suspect; his mobility creates a problem, for he does not
appear to support or supervise his family. Matthew's explanation for Jesus'
mobility is tied to his obedience to his Father (e.g., Luke 2:49), and thus
his regular appearance in "public" places is sanctioned by other aspects of
the gender stereotype, namely loyalty to one's Father (Barton 1994:125-215).

On this topic, let us
recall Jesus' sayings which directly and indirectly attack family loyalty and
legitimate a male's absence from the "private" world of the household. Because
of him, many disciples will be at odds with their families (10:34-38); some
will be ostracized by them (5:11-12; see Neyrey 1998:168-80). Others, it would
appear, "left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children
or lands" for his sake (19:29). Thus Jesus' own mobility would have to be assessed
in terms of the kind of anti-family stance which creates loyalty to Jesus and
his group. Thus one "private" space (household and blood relatives) is replaced
by another (fictive kinship). Whether expelled from the synagogue or seeking
to forge strong fictive kinship bonds, the disciples are told to prize the "private"
world of fictive-kinship over the all other spaces, even "private"-household
space.

Summary, Matthew narrates
Jesus' presence and actions in both the "public"-political forum and the "private"-non-kinship
world of disciples. He never portrays Jesus in his "private"-household, space.
Whereas Jesus assumes male roles commensurate with the first two spaces, he
rejects the male roles vis-a-vis the household. While one might expect a typical
village male to be found "outside," as indeed Jesus is, it is surprising to
find such a person in "public"-political space acting in a political role. If
Jesus' mobility, moreover, creates any problem in terms of his honor, that is
rationalized by his studied rejection of kinship roles and duties and by the
rationale that his public activity is demanded by his Father - thus honor is
restored.

3.2 Jesus and Male Roles:
The Consummate Public Person.

Matthew is mute on Jesus'
role as husband and father and never presents him as having any role in the
"private"- household world. In contrast, most of the roles which Jesus himself
claims or are ascribed to him belong to the "public"-political world. We consider
two factors in the following survey of Jesus' public roles: (1) the proclamation
and acknowledgment of them take place in the "public"-political world, and (2)
the roles acclaimed are all political ones related to politics, the other major
institution in antiquity, indeed the ideal space for honorable males.

Son of God. The
proclamation of Jesus as "son of God", which occurs strategically at the beginning
(3:17), middle (17:5) and end (27:54) the gospel, it is made by political persons,
either God or the Roman centurion, and always in public. Although God calls
Jesus "Son" (3: 17 and 17:5), this is hardly a kinship role for Jesus (d'Angelo
1992a & b). For, the background of "son of god" regularly points in the
direction of the political roles of monarchs in the ancient world (Gadd 1948:45-50).
It applies as well to kings of the Davidic line (see 2 Sam 7: 14; Ps 2:7). It
was applied to wonder workers and occasionally to angels, who act as the "public"
agents of God in political matters, such as battle or judgment. "Son of God,"
then, refers to a political role. We take "son of God," then, to designate Jesus
in terms of a "public"-political not a kinship role.

Son of David .
All other titles and roles locate Jesus outside the "private"-household world
and within in the "public" world of politics. That is, Jesus is not identified
with the institution of kinship, but rather with that of politics. Whether people
call him by any one of the three inter-related titles of "Son of David," "King
of the Jews," or "Christ," they look to him to fulfill those roles and perform
the tasks associated with "public"-political figures. It is by far the label
most frequently ascribed to Jesus, which occurs first in Jesus' genealogy. There
Matthew ascribes royal honor to Jesus by blood descent from the founding fathers
of the nation, both Abraham and David ( 1: 1, 17). In Brown's treatment of the
functions of genealogies, he highlights one in particular, namely, to "undergird
status, especially for the offices of king and priest where lineage is important
(see Ezra 2:62-63; Neh 7:64-65)" (Brown 1993:65). The status in question is
that of a public, political figure. Various people, both males and females,
Judeans and Gentiles, acknowledge this claim of Jesus to a public and political
role in diverse situations: (1) when they petition Jesus to act as benefactor
toward them with the resources reserved to monarchs to bestow (9:27; 15:22;
20:30-31 ) and (2) when they herald Jesus' entrance into the royal city (21:9,
15), an event interpreted by the evangelist as a political act (e.g., "king"
in 21:5). Jesus himself explains Ps 110 in such as way as to indicate that the
"Son of David" will be enthroned at God's right hand, and so enjoy a public
status and role superior even to David himself (22:42-4).

King of Israel/King
of the Jews. The Magi in search of the new king set the reigning king and
his retainers in an uproar (2:2); two kings cannot live in Judea at the same
time. Later, during Jesus' trial and execution, the central issue is his role
and status as "King of the Jews" (27:11, 29, 37, 42). "King" is by far the most
contested role in the gospel, as it upsets Herod, the Jerusalem elites (2:1-4),
the Roman procurator and army (27:11, 29, 37), and becomes a source of mockery
from Judean passers-by at the cross (27:42). Yet, along with "Son of David,"
this most honorable title clearly portrays Jesus in a "public" role in the world
of politics.

Christ/Messiah.
Irrespective of the diverse popular expectations of a Messiah (Charlesworth
1992:3-35), when Matthew narrates that people call Jesus "Christ," they refer
to his "public" role in the world of politics (see Horsley and Hanson 1985:88-134;
Crossan 1991: 168-206). It may be ascribed to Jesus by the heavenly sovereign
and acknowledged on earth by his followers (16:16-17), but it is also bitterly
contested by those who stand to lose political status and power from the presence
of their political rival (26:63, 68; 27:22-23).

Lord (Sovereign).
The label "lord," a general acknowledgment description of honorable extra-household
status, is equivalent to "sir." Thus people address Jesus as "lord" who seek
benefaction from him as a patron under this title (8:2, 5, 21, 25; 14:28; 15:27;
etc.). On two occasions, moreover, the evangelist uses this title for Jesus
in the role of a "public" official, not a private citizen. The "Christ" who
is the "Son of David" sits at the right hand of the heavenly Lord, and in that
context he is himself called "Lord" (22:44-45). A person at the King's right
hand enjoys a "public" role in the world of cosmic politics. Second, although
the label "Lord" is not mentioned in the context, when Jesus states that "All
authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (28:18), he claims the
kind of executive role predicted of him in 22:42-45.

Prophet. Jesus
is often likened to prophets (12:39-40; 16:14) and on one occasion is found
in their company (17:3-4). People in the narrative twice acclaim him a prophet,
both times in Jerusalem: "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee"
(21:11, see 21:46). Yet all of Israel's prophets, especially Moses, Elijah,
Jeremiah and Jonah, were public figures whose role frequently involved them
within the political institution of either forming a people (Moses), criticizing
the behavior of Israel's rulers (Elijah and Jeremiah) or calling a nation to
conversion (Jonah). Prophets were sent to "Jerusalem," the national political
center, which rejected them and killed them (23:37). In regard to Jesus, "prophet"
is likewise a public role in the political institution (see Horsley and Hanson
1985:135-41; Gray 1993:114-23). Moreover, it involved Jesus in political conflict;
for, prophets were sent to criticize those in public-political roles.

In summary, from Jesus'
genealogy and birth to his death and vindication, Matthew presents him not simply
in terms of ordinary male roles and behaviors appropriate to the "private" world
outside of the household. On the contrary, Matthew locates Jesus in the ultimate
public arena of politics where he is ascribed and acknowledged as having elite
public-political roles. According to Matthew, Jesus was no mere head of a household,
artisan or peasant. God has ascribed to him the political roles of "Son of David,"
King of Israel," "Lord" and "Christ. God will make him "sit at my right hand"
with power to judge and rule.

3.3 Jesus and Male Tasks:
No Ordinary Male. Since Matthew locates Jesus mostly in the "outdoors" world
and presents him acting according to political roles there, what tasks and deeds
does Jesus perform? Are they appropriate to private or public space? To the
institution of kinship or politics? How would Jesus' actions be viewed in terms
of the gender stereotype?

3.3.1 Few Actions and
a Limited Private Role. Matthew narrates no actions or words by Jesus which
relate to management of his own household. Yet males in villages also enjoyed
a vigorous "private" life with friends independent of the household. We saw
how frequently Jesus eats in the homes of disciples (8:14-15) and followers
(9:10-13). The "private" conversations with the disciples on the way to Jerusalem
(Matt 16:1320:28) are a special case and will be discussed shortly. Hence, we
find Jesus frequently in "private" non-kinship space, where he does what all
ancient males did with great frequency, namely, "hang out" in the company of
other males.

3.3.2 Shepherd, Warrior,
Lawgiver and Benefactor. Judging from the importance Matthew gives to it,
we focus now on what Jesus does in the "public" world where he acts out certain
political roles. The simplest way to treat this is to compare Jesus in his "public"-political
roles with what David or other kings of Israel did. 1. Shepherd. David
was shepherd, not simply of sheep, but of the nation; he was also warrior, lawgiver,
judge and benefactor-patron. Matthew describes Jesus as "shepherd" of a leaderless
flock (9:36), who benefits them by his healings and feedings, relieves misery
by miraculous acts, and forgives debts and sins. 2. Warrior. All of Jesus'
conflicts with demons are properly the acts of a warrior-ruler attacking a rival,
according to the symbolic world of that ancient culture (Robinson 1957:33-42).
In defense of his power and authority, Jesus mounts an apology to the political
charge that he is the agent of the "Prince of Demons"; he explains that kingdoms
or "houses" in civil war collapse. But Jesus the warrior besieges the fortress
of a rival warrior, captures him and plunders his kingdom (12:25-29). 3. Lawgiver-Judge.
Jesus proposes a law (5:21-46; 16:24-26) and acts as enforcer of his law, namely,
as a judge (16:27). As king, he will sit on his heavenly throne and separate
his subjects like sheep and goats, rewarding some but requiting others (25:31-46).
4. Benefactor. As expected of a generous monarch, Jesus provides access
to God's great storehouse of food, health and freedom. Despite the cultural
perception of a radically limited supply of all good things, Jesus is able to
increase the amount of goods, not by taking from others (i.e., spoils), but
by divine benefaction which expands the supply and enriches all. In this, Jesus
stands heads and shoulders over other benefactors of this world, who must despoil
many to benefit a few.

3.3.3 Responder to Public,
Even Political Challenges. Virtually every chreia about Jesus narrates a
challenge to him and his response. All challenges, to be effective, must be
"public," that is, face-to-face with Jesus before the eyes and ears of others.
In that culture, every honorable male must not turn the other cheek,
but to deliver a riposte (Neyrey 1998a:666-81). And Jesus indubitably does so,
despite what he told his disciples (5:38-42). Two questions arise: (1) are Jesus'
claims and the challenges to them those of a private or public-political nature
(i.e., "only God can forgive sins?") and (2) what is the social location of
the players who claim and who challenges? The content of most of the claims
and of the challenges to them have to do with "public"-political matters. In
regard to the social location of claimants and challengers, if the challengers
to Jesus were merely private individuals who, out of envy of him (Mk 15:10)
challenged him, then his riposte would be the appropriate behavior of a private
person. If, however, his challengers are rulers and elites in the political
institution, then challenge and riposte games should be upgraded to reflect
the conflict over the public role and status of Jesus in that political institution.
We saw earlier that at the beginning and ending of the gospel the political
elite plot Jesus' death. The challenge-riposte game, then, is played among the
male elite of the "public"-political world.

Does the picture change
when we move from the capital city to Galilee? Who are the people who challenge
Jesus (12:38) and test him (16:1)? By far the dominant opposition to Jesus in
Galilee comes from the Pharisees (9:11, 34; 12:2, 14, 24, 38; 15:12; 19:3).
Saldarini notes (1988:168-69) that in general the Galilean challenges from scribes
and Pharisees touch on two areas: food rules (9:6-13, 14-17; 12:1-8; 15:12)
and sources of power (9:32-34; 12:22-24). Yet, these should not be classified
as "religious" issues. Daniel and 2 and 4 Maccabees witness that what one eats
is a matter of political loyalty. The Pharisees belong to the retainer class
who serve the governing elite (that is, those with wealth and direct political
power) and who allied themselves with them to promote their own programs for
Judaism. In Galilee, they were not the top level of leadership, but influential
figures in local village leadership. They were a middle level of leadership
between the governing class and the people and sometimes acted as brokers for
the people with their higher contacts (Saldarini 1988:171-72). Thus Jesus is
confronted by a high level class of retainers who serve the elite - no mean
opponents. Therefore, challengers to Jesus, whether in the capital city or in
Galilee, belong to the public-political world. The contents of the challenges,
moreover, are political issues, either Jesus' identity and role or his agenda
for the way the nation should act. Thus, both challengers and the topics of
conflict confirm the presentation of Jesus as an honorable "public"-political
figure. It is exclusively male behavior to seek honor, make claims and defend
them. It is uniquely male behavior to engage in combat.

3.4 Jesus and Male Speech.
According to the gender stereotype, males in "private" space outside the household
have voice but females do not, a distinction all the more true of the "public"-political
world. But not every male had public voice, as Plutarch implies in this maxim:
"Nature has given us two ears and one tongue, because we ought to do less talking
than listening" (Listening to Lectures 39B). Who, then, has voice? What
have age, social location and public/private space to do with voice? First,
young males generally do not enjoy voice, as Lysias indicates: "Some people
are annoyed at me merely for attempting at too early an age to speak before
the people" (Defense of Mantitheus 16.20; Luke 2:46-47). Second, perhaps
Luke had this cultural issue this in mind when he stated that Jesus was "about
thirty years of age" (3:23) when he went to the Jordan. Some scholars read this,
not so much as calendar age, but as a claim that Jesus was sufficiently mature
to be an elder (Buchanan 1995). Third, elite male citizens had "public" voice,
but not male peasants. Thus, social location indicates whether in the eyes of
others one has the right to speak. In general, then, elders, who are higher
up the status ladder, enjoy public voice; less so, ordinary males and youth
(Rohrbaugh 1995:192-95; Neyrey 1996:276-79). Let us examine now Jesus' public
speaking in terms of his social role and the conventions of an honorable public
male.

3.4.1 Jesus' Right to
Public Speech. While Matthew remains silent on whether Jesus as "educated"
(see John 7:15), which might qualify him to speak, he narrates that Jesus was
authorized to speak and to act in public world by the highest-ranking person
in the cosmos. At the Jordan with the Baptizer, John, not Jesus has public voice.
But Matthew notes that Jesus immediately assumed public voice as he "taught
in their synagogues and preached the gospel of the kingdom" (4:23). The function
of the theophany at the Jordan (3:16-17) serves as the formal commissioning
of Jesus to a public role with public voice. Rohrbaugh argued this case for
the Lukan narrative (1995:186-95), and the same can be said of Matthew. God
authorizes Jesus to the public role of "Son of God" (3:17), which, while challenged
(4: 1-11 ), is subsequently acknowledged by the audiences who hear Jesus' successful
speaking and see his actions (4:23-24; see Malina-Rohrbaugh 1992:304). Later
in the narrative, when Jesus begins to speak a new word about the fate of the
Son of man and the "way" of discipleship (16:21-26), God again appears in a
theophany and authorizes the reluctant disciples to "Listen to him" (17:5).
Jesus, then, has public voice because God commissions him what to say and what
to do.

In addition, Jesus himself
claims a unique bestowal of esoteric knowledge given to him by God (11:25-27),
which he speaks to a select few (11:27). He claims, moreover, legitimacy to
speak by comparing himself with Jonah and Solomon, whose public voices were
most honorable, only he is "greater than Jonah" and "greater than Solomon" (12:41-42).
Thus, Matthew has studiously attended to the issue of the legitimacy of Jesus'
public voice. In virtue of his ascribed honor from God, he has a public role
with a public voice, even a valid political voice.

3.4.2 The Content of
Jesus' Public Speech. The content of Jesus' public speech includes materials
from both male and female worlds. Jesus speaks about the ordinary roles and
tasks of females: clothing production (6:28-30; 9:16), food preparation (i.e.,
leavening flour, 13:33) and child rearing (19:13-15; see 18:1-4). Five maids
in a noble house (25:1-13) receive praise for performance of their domestic
duties. While he mentions the Queen of the South (12:42), he praises her for
listening to the wisdom of king Solomon. Not surprisingly, the bulk of
his discourse is about male topics. Jesus, artisan and peasant, knows and speaks
of the roles and tasks of ordinary males in the outdoor world of the village:
carpenters (13:55), fishermen (4:18-22; 13:47-48), sowers (13:3), farmers buying
fields (13:44), merchants (13:45), shepherds (18:12-13; 26:31), day laborers
(20:1-16), tenant farmers (21:35-39), and servants abroad doing the master'
s bidding (22:2-10).

Yet in contrast to these
ordinary concerns of village non-elites, Matthew presents Jesus speaking of
affairs in the public-political world, namely God's "kingdom" (Chilton 1994;
Malina 2001:15-35). In a programmatic summary of his public speech, Jesus declared
that it is his role to "preach the gospel of the kingdom" (4:23; see also 9:35).
And his parables from 13:19 onward speak about the "kingdom." Modern translations
of Jesus' words, however, reduce his discourse on "kingdom of God" to the politically
innocuous "God reigning." Moreover, modern political ideology separates "church"
from "state," making it difficult to interpret "kingdom" except in terms of
"religion" which is not embedded in politics (Malina 2001:91-95 and 1986:92-101).
But these recent trends are anachronistic Euro-American concerns which skew
the perspective of religion-embedded-in-politics commonly found in antiquity.
We argue that when Jesus speaks of "kingdom," he generally speaks of the public
world and the institution of politics.

At first, Jesus' discourse
about this political "kingdom" seems problematic because of the metaphors used
to describe it. Some compare it items and actions within the ordinary male "outdoors"
world and the female world of the household. The kingdom of heaven is like a
woman putting leaven into flour (13:33) and a man sowing seed (13:24) or a grain
of mustard seed (13:31; see 13:44, 45, 47). Balancing these metaphors, Matthew
likens the kingdom of heaven to a king's wedding feast for his son (22: 1),
a significant political event. It resembles some great landowner hiring many
workers (20:1 ) or a king settling great debts (18:23). Some metaphors accentuate
the greatness of the kingdom, others stress its lack of honor and significance
or its strangeness. What metaphor Jesus uses to describe the "kingdom," while
important, is ultimately less important here than the fact that he talks about
it so frequently and claims to know it intimately. He exercises public voice
on a most public topic.

Jesus' discourse on "the
kingdom" contains many typical topics, the first of which is membership: who
belongs in this kingdom? Jesus declares that some unlikely people will be accepted
in the kingdom (8:11-12; 21:43; 22:8-10; 25:34-40), while others who thought
they had a claim to it will be cast out of it (22:2-7 & 13; 25:41-46). Second,
is there social stratification as one finds in a political kingdom? Evidently,
for we are told that there are "greatest" and "least"; status sometimes based
on observance of the rule of Jesus (5:19), sometimes on benefaction ( 11: 11
) and sometimes on the new code of worth and honor proclaimed by Jesus (19:14;
see 18:1, 4 and 20:21). Third, in it benefaction is practiced (13:11; 11:25-27),
albeit a benefaction quite different from that practiced by rulers in the world
(20:25-26). Fourth, The ancestors of the kingdom are well remembered, both patriarchs
(8:11) and monarchs such as David and Solomon (6:29; 12:3, 42). Finally, Jesus
describes the great triumphal approach () of the vindicated monarch (24:27,
37, 39). Thus a large part of Jesus' speech concerns the "public"-political
world in which Matthew insists that Jesus has a valid right to speak.

3.4.3 The Honor Component
in Jesus' Public Speech. Finally, we briefly consider the times when Jesus
redefines the prevailing male value of honor. I have argued elsewhere that Jesus
began his Sermon on the Mount declaring "honorable" those who were dishonored
for his sake (5:3-12; Neyrey 1998:164-87; Hanson 1996). Moreover he called off
the typical games whereby males pursued honor, physical, sexual and verbal aggression
(5:21-48; Neyrey 1998:190-211), and he demanded that his disciples on select
occasions vacate the playing field where honor is claimed and awarded (6:1-18;
Neyrey 1998:212-28). While the content of this first public discourse is about
the male value of honor, Jesus discredits conventional honor-gaining and honor-maintaining
behavior. In this regard he challenges much of the prevailing male gender stereotype.

Jesus' redefinition of
honor constitutes the commanding feature of other remarks, namely Jesus' teaching
of "the Way" on his way to Jerusalem. Although Jesus spoke often to crowds "outdoors,"
he gave distinctive teaching to the inner circle of disciples whom he leads
to Jerusalem. Matthew bracketed this material about Jesus' "way" in terms of
the group addressed (i.e., inner circle), the time when it was spoken (after
Caesarea Philippi and before Jerusalem) and the locale (on route to Jerusalem).
Of what does Jesus' new honor code consist? We confess to seeing in Jesus' teaching
on the way to Jerusalem (16:21-20:28) a new code of honor and shame.

16:21-28 honor comes from
taking up one's cross and imitating Jesus

17:14-20 shame comes from
having too little "faith"

17:24-27 honor comes from
taking tribute, shame from paying taxes

18:1-6 honor comes from
being worthless, like a child

18:7-9 discipleship may
require the shame of loss of an honorable limb

Most of this instruction
seems concerned with the issues of stratification and social location, generally
a male concern. The "greatest in the kingdom of heaven" is not the ruler or
leader, but a "worthless" child (18:1-6). Although kings of the earth take tribute
and do not pay taxes (17:25), Jesus and his followers, who now are reckoned
among that elite, still pay the shekel tax. Jesus denies session at his right
and hands to James and John (20:20-23). The "great ones" and the "first" should
be like Jesus, the servant and last of all (20:25-28). The creation of a new
social hierarchy challenges that of the public-political world, in keeping with
which Jesus denies all elite titles and power to his disciples (23:8-12). Other
examples of Jesus' new social hierarchy include:

1. last is first, first
is last (19:30; 20:16)

2. least is greatest,
greatest is least (18:1-4)

3. humbled is exalted,
exalted is humbled (23:12)

4. servant is "a great
one" (20:26) or greatest (23:11); slave is first (20:27).

5. no one is greater than
John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom

of heaven is greater than
he (11:1).

A social hierarchy there is, which is now based on values not
thought of as male or honorable. This constitutes, then, the most egregious
variance of Jesus from the male stereotype.

Other materials, however, touch on the manly virtue of courage.
Honorable courage is required to face trials (16:21-26), to lose face and worth
(18:7-9), to forego vengeance in favor of pardon (18:20-35), to foreswear sexual
aggression (19:4-12), and to lose wealth, a typical mark of honor (19:16-30).
But clearly most of the remarks of Jesus "on the way" to Jerusalem serve to
redefine "honor" for males in the kingdom of God.

This material is all the more striking in view of the "love
of honor" (µ) which characterized the ancients (Neyrey 1988:16-19), and Jesus
regularly discourses on it. He knows that it is "love of honor" which drives
people to public display of socially commended actions. Some practice their
piety in public "in order to be seen by men" (6:1, 2, 5, 16). Similarly, Jesus
criticizes the Pharisees for their love of honor: They do all their deeds to
be seen by men; they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and
they love the places of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, salutations
in the market place and being called rabbi by men (23:5-7). These Pharisees
appear to be no different from other males in the ancient world: they dress
for success, seek prominent social space, and thrive on public acknowledgment
of their worth. Even Jesus laments the loss of his share of it when he is not
acknowledged at home (13:57). But Matthew relentlessly portrays Jesus opposing
this part of the male stereotype. Therefore, we see that the bulk of Jesus'
public speech directly engages the conventions of male honor. All, including
Jesus and God, seek acknowledgment of their worth, role, and status by others.
What differs in Matthew is the reform of the honor code. Jesus' discourse on
honor is a male gender phenomenon in their "private" outdoors and "public"-political
realms.

4.0 Summary and Conclusions

From this study of gender in antiquity we draw the following
conclusions. 1. We have clearly in view a stereotype of a radically gender-divided
world. The stereotype, moreover, was replicated the basic institutions of antiquity
(politics and kinship), and structured the whole lives of males and females,
their roles, places, tasks and tools. The corollary to this was a set of the
social expectations shared by all according to which both males and females
would be evaluated and either praised or blamed.

2. Our ancient informants describe a simple stereotype of gender-divided
space (i.e., males/public and females/private), in that male tasks take them
"out of doors," whereas female tasks focus them "indoors." Our data urge us
to nuance this, for males belong in three places: "public"-political, "private"-household
and "private"-association. Females belong only to the "private"-household world,
even if tasks take them out of the house. Thus males are not simply "public"
as the ancient stereotypes suggest, but move in and out of relationship to both
the political world and the world of the household. The same is not true for
females.

3. In regard to Jesus, Matthew rarely locates him "inside"
and mentions no duties which he has toward his household, either to mother,
wife or children. He appears in the "private" world of non-related males and
females (e.g., in marketplaces, synagogues, dining rooms or traveling to wilderness,
mountains, temple and the like). Moreover, Matthew credits Jesus with an exalted
role and status which belong to persons in the public-political world. Thus,
in our analysis, Jesus has nothing to do with the institution of kinship, except
to encourage disciples to stand against its pressures to conform. Thus, Matthew
presents the male Jesus in both public and private space, the public-political
and a private-association realms.

4. Jesus' actions are generally those expected of honorable,
public males. He performs splendidly in the local game of push-and-shove, that
is, the challenge and riposte exchange (Neyrey 1998a; Malina and Neyrey 1988:71-91).
His adversaries are generally socially prominent people, whose hostility to
Jesus only raises his status.

5. One of the striking features of Matthew' s presentation
of Jesus is his public voice. Jesus' audiences regularly credit him with public
voice by comparing him with others: "he taught them as one with authority, and
not as their scribes" (7:29). Although the contents of his speech cover a wide
range of topics, two aspects stand out. First, he speaks often about the kingdom
of God, which we consider a genuinely political topic. His high-status, political
roles as "Son of God," "King of Israel," "Son of David" and "Christ" go hand
in hand with this discourse. Second, the cultural value of honor was a constant
features in Jesus' discourse. His remarks on honor, however, often conflict
with those of the great code of honor to which all males in some fashion were
socialized. Jesus reforms aspects of the code by declaring that certain behaviors
honorable in the eyes of one's family and peers are not praiseworthy before
God, and vice-versa.

This study, then, contributes to the study of gender in antiquity
by making salient what the ancients understood by male gender, which as an historical
matter should not be left to intuition or political correctness. The gender
stereotype of a totally divided world is an historical fact. In light of this,
Matthew portrays the male Jesus as most honorable: he acts where honorable males
should act ("outside" and in public); he behaves as males should, whether in
challenge-riposte exchanges or with socially approved voice to speak boldly
and authoritatively. Jesus may seem not to conform to the gender stereotype
when he demands of his followers that they: 1. eschew male games of physical
and sexual aggression to gain honor; 2. vacate the public forum to perform their
piety; 3. endure shameful actions, such as ostracization, 4. forsaking family
wealth, 5. become lowly and serve others. But these shameful actions actually
become the way to honor in the eyes of God and Jesus. Thus knowing the ancient
gender stereotype allows a reader of Matthew to assess the gospel presentation
of Jesus as an ideal, honorable male.

.

[H]uman beings
live not in the open air, like beasts, but obviously need shelter. Nevertheless,
those who mean to win store to fill the covered place, have need of someone
to work at the open-air occupations; since plowing, sowing, planting and
grazing are all such open-air employments; and these supply the needful
food. Then again, as soon as this is stored in the covered place, then there
is need for someone to keep it and to work at the things that must be done
under cover. Cover is needed for the nursing of the infants; cover is needed
for the making of corn into bread, and likewise for the manufacture of clothing
from the wool. And since both the indoor and the outdoor tasks demand labour
and attention, God from the first adapted the woman's nature, I think, to
the indoor and man's to the outdoor tasks and cares" (Xenophon, Oeconomicus
7.19-22)

For Providence has
made man stronger and woman weaker, so that he in virtue of his manly prowess
may be more ready to defend the home, and she, by reason of her timid nature,
more ready to keep watch over it; and while he brings in fresh supplies
from without, she may keep safe what lies within. In handicrafts again,
woman was given a sedentary patience, though denied stamina for endurance
of exposure; while man, though inferior to her in quiet employments, is
endowed with vigour for every active occupation. In the production of children
both share alike; but each makes a different contribution to their upbringing.
It is the mother who nurtures, and the father who educates" (Aristotle,
Oeconomica 1.3.4 (1343b 30 - 1344a 9).

Market-places and
council-halls and law-courts and gatherings and meetings where a large number
of people are assembled, and open-air life with full scope for discussion
and action -- all these are suitable to men both in war and peace. The women
are best suited to the indoor life which never strays from the house, within
which the middle door is taken by the maidens as their boundary, and the
outer door by those who have reached full womanhood (Philo, Special Laws
3.169).

Before anything else
I should speak about the occupations by which a household is maintained.
They should be divided in the usual manner, namely, to the husband should
be assigned those which have to do with agriculture, commerce, and the affairs
of the city; to the wife those which have to do with spinning and the preparation
of food, in short, those of a domestic nature (Hierocles, On Duties (4:28.21).

Works Consulted

Adkins, Arthur W.H.

1960 Merit and Responsibility. A Study in Greek Values.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Midway Reprint)

Anderson, Janice Carol

1982 "Matthew: Gender and Reading," Semeia 28: 3-27

Arnal, William E.

1977 "Gendered Couplets in Q and Legal Formulations: From Rhetoric to Social
History," JBL 116: 75-94

1994 Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Blok, Anton

1981 "Rams and Billy-Goats: A Key to the Mediterranean Code of Honor," Man
16: 427-440. Reprinted pp. 51-70 in Eric Wolf (ed.), Religion, Power and
Protest in Local Communities. The Northern Shore of the Mediterranean. New
York: Moulton Publishers, 1984

Brandes, Stanley

1980 Metaphors of Masculinity. Sex and Status in Andalusian Folklore.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

1992b "Theology in Mark and Q: Abba and 'Father' in Context," HTR 85:149-74

Davis, John

1984 "The Sexual Division of Labour in the Mediterranean." Pp. 17-50 in Eric
Wolf (ed.), Religion, Power and Protest in Local Communities. The Northern
Shore of the Mediterranean. New York: Moulton Publishers

Dubish, Jill

1986 Gender and Power in Rural Greece. Princeton: Princeton University
Press